Katie Hopkins

[motorbiking]

It’s well known that Kopkins is a poisonous piece of sh1t that peddles hatred.

It’s feking funny that Jack Monroe gave her a choice of destroying Hopkins reputation as a POS or losing a ton of money.

I laughed my head off

It certainly showed her stupidity

 

[motorbiking]

I wonder what would have happened if Jack Monroe had mentioned any particular charity. Or if they had both agreed on a more neutral charity.

Her lawyers would have suggested this in the strongest terms. There is nothing more stupid than hiring lawyers to fight your losing case and then ignoring them. As long as you are paying they will keep going.

 

[motorbiking]

Motorbiking has lost the argument that there was mistaken identity.

There is literally zero evidence of any mistaken identity, not one.

Motorbiking the LOSER

you are special.

Apart from the letter before claim, half a dozen references to it in the judgement, including the half apology etc. you mean.

 

[MNW67]

Her lawyers would have suggested this in the strongest terms. There is nothing more stupid than hiring lawyers to fight your losing case and then ignoring them.

We don't know whether Hopkins had taken legal advice at this point.

But I can see what you mean by the original demand for an apology not being sincere. Monroe must have known that Hopkins would never donate to a pro migrant charity. So, to some extent the well was poisoned. But Hopkins could simply have written back suggesting the Royal British Legion instead.

So the retraction and apology would have looked like this:

“A tweet to be sent at a date and time to be agreed, ‘I was confused about identity. I got it wrong. @MsJackMonroe I’m sorry. I have made a substantial donation to the Royal British Legion at her request.’”

 

[noseall]

Monroe must have known that Hopkins would never donate to a pro migrant charity

Nonsense.

 

[MNW67]

Nonsense.

I despise Hopkins. But she has a "brand" to protect. What do you think of the rest of my proposal. I think it would have worked out very well.

 

[blup]

It’s not what I think it’s what she would think.

I am not attributing that to her, just commenting on your interpretation of the position

She was of course welcome to counter offer, make a fuller apology etc etc.

Yes

 

[noseall]

I despise Hopkins. But she has a "brand" to protect. What do you think of the rest of my proposal. I think it would have worked out very well.

Hopkins could have kept it out of court. She CHOSE the combative approach, no one else.

 

[Notch7]

you are special.

Apart from the letter before claim, half a dozen references to it in the judgement, including the half apology etc. you mean.

none of those has any evidence claiming there was mistaken identity

if you think otherwise please show me the words used

 

[Notch7]

But I can see what you mean by the original demand for an apology not being sincere. Monroe must have known that Hopkins would never donate to a pro migrant charity. So, to some extent the well was poisoned. But Hopkins could simply have written back suggesting the Royal British Legion instead.

I dont think Monroe did make any demand at the beginning

all Hopkins needed to have done was apologise properly

Monroe only escalated after Hopkins effectively doubled down, with her non apology which was the excuse of mistaken identity

 

[MNW67]

I dont think Monroe did make any demand at the beginning

all Hopkins needed to have done was apologise properly

Monroe only escalated after Hopkins effectively doubled down, with her non apology which was the excuse of mistaken identity

I don't think that's right. Within an hour of KH first tweet, Jack Monroe replied:

At 8.14pm Ms Monroe tweeted again, this time using Ms Hopkins’ Twitter handle: “Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.”

 

[Notch7]

I don't think that's right. Within an hour of KH first tweet, Jack Monroe replied:

within minutes of Hopkins tweet, Jack Monroe tweeted this:

“I have NEVER ‘scrawled on a memorial’. Brother in the RAF. Dad was a Para in the Falklands. You’re a piece of ****.”

there was no demand for a donation.

Katie Hopkins then deleted the original tweet, and then sent another inflammatory tweet, following which Jack Monroe responded with the tweet you quoted.

Case Law: Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins, Success for claimant in Twitter libel case – Nathan Capone

Food blogger and political activist Jack Monroe has won a defamation claim against Katie Hopkins in respect of two tweets published on Twitter (see the Inforrm case preview). Ms Monroe was awarded …

inforrm.org

 

[motorbiking]

none of those has any evidence claiming there was mistaken identity

if you think otherwise please show me the words used

19 A letter of complaint was sent promptly by Ms Monroe’s solicitors, Seddons. On 21May 2015 they wrote to Ms Hopkins c/o STH Management. They said, among other things:

“… the words were highly defamatory of Ms Monroe and have caused a huge amount of stress and trouble. Despite those tweets being made by Ms Penny, it is clear that you thought they had been made by Ms Monroe. [1] Quite clearly your followers, who number over half a million, shared the confusion [2] that you promoted and consequently Ms Monroe was subjected to a torrent of abusive and vile comment. When it was pointed out by you to Ms Monroe that you had made a mistake [3] you decided not to take action but instead aggravated the position by tweeting (at 9:47pm)…”

22. Following further correspondence largely devoted to exploring the issue of serious harm, these proceedings were issued in December 2015. The Defence raised the three issues identified at the outset of this judgment. It also averred that Ms Monroe had` “herself extensively publicised the tweets containing the statements complained of, the circumstances of the tweets, her denials in relation to the tweets, that the Defendant had been mistaken in mentioning her in the First Tweet [4], and her contempt for the Defendant’s conduct and the Defendant generally.” The Defence denied Ms Monroe’s claim to have suffered “substantial upset and distress”, pointing to “the obvious pleasure taken by her in threatening these proceedings”, and to her activity on Twitter in relation to the matters complained of.

28. The argument for Ms Hopkins is that the Second Tweet did not bear the meaning complained of. It “would have been understood [by] the ordinary reader as no more than a petulant acknowledgment by [her] that she had mistakenly identified [Ms Monroe] instead of Ms Penny”.[5] Alternatively, it is argued that the Second Tweet bore the same meaning as the First Tweet: that Ms Monroe “was supportive – politically – of those who had painted the slogan onto the monument.”.

49. The reader with knowledge of the facts relied on will have understood Ms Hopkins to be acknowledging that when she sent the First Tweet she had mixed up Ms Monroe and Ms Penny.[6]

here are 6 references, There are more, but I can't be ars$d to cut and paste.

You also don't have to rely on 2nd hand information form blog posts. All the above are from the judgement.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf

 

[Notch7]

here are 6 references, There are more, but I can't be ars$d to cut and paste

Your references are not proof that Hopkins first tweet was mistaken identity.

For example: “When it was pointed out by you to Ms Monroe that you had made a mistake”


All that proves is that Hopkins made the excuse that is was mistaken identity
here is another example: It “would have been understood [by] the ordinary reader as no more than a petulant acknowledgment by [her] that she had mistakenly identified [Ms Monroe] instead of Ms Penny”.[5]

All that proves is that Hopkins 2nd tweet using mistaken identity as an excuse…..achieved its aim as that’s what the ordinary reader may have thought.



I repeat: there is NO evidence that it was mistaken identity, there is only Hopkins claim that’s what her tweet meant.

 

[motorbiking]

Your references are not proof that Hopkins first tweet was mistaken identity.

For example: “When it was pointed out by you to Ms Monroe that you had made a mistake”


All that proves is that Hopkins made the excuse that is was mistaken identity
here is another example: It “would have been understood [by] the ordinary reader as no more than a petulant acknowledgment by [her] that she had mistakenly identified [Ms Monroe] instead of Ms Penny”.[5]

All that proves is that Hopkins 2nd tweet using mistaken identity as an excuse…..achieved its aim as that’s what the ordinary reader may have thought.



I repeat: there is NO evidence that it was mistaken identity, there is only Hopkins claim that’s what her tweet meant.

You are invited to read paragraph 17-21. You will see that at no point did Hopkins claim a mistake had been made until after the letter before action.

I dont think Monroe did make any demand at the beginning

all Hopkins needed to have done was apologise properly

Monroe only escalated after Hopkins effectively doubled down, with her non apology which was the excuse of mistaken identity

It will also help you with the time line. 7:20 the tweet, 8:14 the claim. (incl 5k)